ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Clinical utility of an optoelectronic imaging tracing system for diagnosis of high-grade cervical lesions.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the performance of a novel Optoelectronic Imaging Tracing System (OITS) in diagnosing high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and to compare its effectiveness with existing methods, including HPV genotyping, liquid-based cytology (LBC), and colposcopy in cervical lesion screening. Methods: This prospective observational study enrolled 303 women referred for colposcopy between September and December 2024. All participants underwent OITS examination prior to colposcopy, followed by directed cervical biopsy with histopathology as the reference standard. The diagnostic performance of OITS for detecting CIN2+ and CIN3+ lesions was compared with LBC, high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing, HPV16/18 genotyping, and colposcopic impression. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Results: Histopathology identified 82 cases of CIN2+ and 34 cases of CIN3 +. OITS demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy for CIN2+ detection, with an AUC of 0.798 (95% CI: 0.762-0.834), sensitivity of 97.6% (95% CI: 94.2-100), specificity of 62.0% (95% CI: 55.6-68.4), and a negative predictive value of 98.6% (95% CI: 96.6-100.5). DeLong's test for correlated ROC curves confirmed that the diagnostic accuracy of OITS was statistically significantly superior to other methods evaluated (all P<0.05). OITS positivity increased with lesion severity and reached 100% in CIN3 and invasive cancer. Across stratified subgroups defined by HPV status, cytology, and colposcopic impression, OITS consistently maintained sensitivity above 93%, outperforming all comparator methods. Conclusions: OITS shows excellent and stable performance in identifying high-grade cervical lesions among women referred for colposcopy. Its high sensitivity, strong rule-out capability, and objective assessment suggest that OITS may serve as an effective adjunct or alternative triage tool to optimize cervical cancer screening and referral strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.